FCC Moves To Fine AT&T $100 Million For Throttling 'Unlimited' Plan Users

from the who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-my-regular-at&t? dept

This new FCC is really quite interesting. After years and years of never actually doing anything to push back against anti-consumer policies by the big telcos, in the last few months it seems like that’s all the FCC does. Today’s move? Proposing a $100 million fine against AT&T for its bogus practice of throttling “unlimited” customers. As you may recall, AT&T offered “unlimited” mobile data connections, but eventually killed off that offering. To avoid getting in trouble for bait and switch, AT&T grandfathered in those who previously had the unlimited plan… but then started throttling those accounts to try to pressure people into moving to a different plan. The FTC is already suing AT&T over this, and just last month we noted that AT&T had made some changes in response to FCC pressure.

However, this new move by the FCC is a big one — saying that it thinks the company’s throttling practice flat out broke the old open internet rules (the transparency part of the rules — which the court did not throw out). AT&T, as it’s doing with the FTC case, has already indicated that it’s going to fight this fine, so expect years to go by before any fine is actually paid. The full FCC notice is worth a read. The key point is pretty basic: don’t call it unlimited when it’s very, very limited:

The imposition of set data thresholds and speed reductions is antithetical to the term ?unlimited.? AT&T was aware that its continued use of the word unlimited to describe its data plans was likely to mislead consumers, as evidenced by the focus group studies conducted by AT&T around the time the Company implemented its MBR [maximum bit rate] policy. Further, since its MBR policy was implemented, the Commission and the Company itself received many complaints from AT&T unlimited data plan customers who felt misled about the services they expected to receive when they purchased unlimited data plans.

We find that AT&T?s use of the term ?unlimited? to label plans that were, in fact, subject to significant speed restrictions after subscribers used a specific amount of data is apparently inaccurate and misleading to consumers. As evidenced by the many complaints we have received about the MBR policy, consumers entered into contracts for these ?unlimited? plans with the mistaken belief that they had unlimited amounts of high speed data sufficient to use any website or application, regardless of how much data they used in a month. We thus conclude that every time AT&T described such a plan to a customer as ?unlimited,? it misrepresented the nature of its service. It did so in every monthly billing statement for an unlimited plan and every time a term contract for an unlimited plan was renewed. The Transparency Rule requires accuracy in all statements regarding broadband provider?s network management practices, performance, and commercial terms, and providers are prohibited from ?making assertions about their service that contain errors, are inconsistent with the provider?s disclosure statement, or are misleading or deceptive.?

We further find that AT&T?s apparently misleading use of the term ?unlimited? to label its plan impeded competition because it prevented consumers from fully comparing AT&T?s plan to other similar plans. This inured to AT&T?s benefit and to the disadvantage of its competitors. While AT&T describes its plan as ?unlimited,? its competitors describe almost identical plans as offering ?unlimited talk and text? with a set amount of LTE data. Without adequate disclosures, the average consumer would consider these plans to be significantly different, when in fact they are not. A consumer was likely to mistakenly assume that the AT&T ?unlimited? plan offers more high-speed data than the competing plan, thus hindering fair competition between AT&T and its competitors. Continuing to offer the plan to renewing customers under the original ?unlimited? label falsely advertised that the data plan was the same plan customers originally bought before the MBR policy was implemented.

You can also read FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai’s dissent in which he (really) quotes Kafka’s The Trial and claims that the FCC is changing the rules as it goes.

A government “rule” suddenly revised, yet retroactive. Inconvenient facts ignored. A business practice sanctioned after years of implied approval. A penalty conjured from the executioner?s imagination. These and more Kafkaesque badges adorn this Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), in which the Federal Communications Commission seeks to impose a $100 million fine against AT&T for failing to comply with the apparently opaque ?transparency? rule the FCC adopted in its 2010 Net Neutrality Order. In particular, the NAL alleges that AT&T failed to disclose that unlimited-data-plan customers could have their data speeds reduced temporarily as part of the company?s approach to managing network congestion.

Because the Commission simply ignores many of the disclosures AT&T made; because it refuses to grapple with the few disclosures it does acknowledge; because it essentially rewrites the transparency rule ex post by imposing specific requirements found nowhere in the 2010 Net Neutrality Order; because it disregards specific language in that order and related precedents that condone AT&T?s conduct; because the penalty assessed is drawn out of thin air; in short, because the justice dispensed here condemns a private actor not only in innocence but also in ignorance, I dissent.

Pai points out that AT&T did put out a number of warnings that its plan might include reduced speeds… but it still called the plans unlimited.

Either way, this should keep plenty of telco lawyers employed for many years…

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: at&t

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Moves To Fine AT&T $100 Million For Throttling 'Unlimited' Plan Users”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Steve Swafford (profile) says:

I'm unlimited and..

yes, I just got one of these txt’s warning me just a few days ago. I immediately got on att chat and challenged them on it. They told me that the txt is a random one and that they looked at my account and that I do have unlimited. To trust them on this, that they will do nothing of the sort when it comes to threats of throttling my data lol.

Anonymous Coward says:

If "unlimited" is unlimited, is "Internet", Internet?

There are dozens of ways that ISP’s hobble services.

Some ISP’s (who are frequently discussed on TD) switch at layer 4, and hobble TCP sessions in order to create a secondary market for “Business Internet”. Of course their business customers experience almost daily outages just like their home customers.

But hey, your VPN sessions don’t suspend after 30 seconds if you pay an extra 29.95 a month!

Breaking things on purpose is the same as throttling. It is using a monopoly position to regulate speech and trade between parties the ISP has no contractual relationship with.

“Internet” is the transmission of an unmolested layer 3 frame. That is what most Americans pay for. It is not what most of them are getting.

GEMont (profile) says:

Like a merry go round.

I can see this process going on for a long, long time.

AT&T breaks the law for a year, robbing its customers of nearly 1.3 billion dollars.

FCC fines AT&T 3 million dollars for breaking the law after a 3 year court battle costing the US taxpayer 13 million dollars.

FCC becomes just another expense for business as usual.

Rinse and repeat.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow